Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:08:01.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Where Is (Social) Meaning?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2021

Edited by
Lauren Hall-Lew ,
Emma Moore  and
Robert J. Podesva
Lauren Hall-Lew
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Emma Moore
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Robert J. Podesva
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation
Theorizing the Third Wave
 , pp. 25 - 150
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Bauman, Carina. 2016. Speaking of Sisterhood: A Sociolinguistic Study of an Asian American Sorority. Ph.D. dissertation. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Amanda, Hall-Lew, Lauren, Kemenchedjieva, Yova, and Purse, Ruaridh. 2016. Between California and the Pacific Northwest: The front lax vowels in San Francisco English. In Fridland, V., Evans, B., Kendall, T., and Wassink, A. (eds.), Speech in the Western States, Vol. 1: The Coastal States. Publication of the American Dialect Society. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 33–54.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Kerswill, Paul, Fox, Sue, and Torgersen, Eivind. 2011. Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(2): 151–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, Elaine W. 2004. Ideologies of legitimate mockery. Pragmatics 14(2), 2–89.Google Scholar
Clopper, Cynthia G., and Pisoni, David B.. 2006.The nationwide speech project: A new corpus of American English dialects. Speech Communication 48(6), 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Emma. 2017. Stance and Social Meaning: goat-vowel Variation in San Francisco English. M.Sc. thesis. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
D’Onofrio, Annette, and Van Hofwegen, Janneke. 2015. Nisei style: Vowel dynamism in a second-generation Japanese-American community. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 44. Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 1989. The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1(3), 245–67.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2005. Variation, convention, and social meaning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA). Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008a. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4), 453–76.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008b. Where do ethnolects stop? International Journal of Bilingualism 12(1), 25–42.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2011. Language and power in the preadolescent heterosexual market. American Speech 86(1), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41, 78–100.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2016. Variation, meaning, and social change. In Coupland, N. (ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and Labov, William. 2017. Phonetics, phonology and social meaning. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(4), 1–30.Google Scholar
Godfrey, Brian J. 1988. Neighborhoods in Transition: The Making of San Francisco’s Ethnic and Nonconformist Communities. University of California Publications in Geography, Vol. 27. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2005. One shift, two groups: When fronting alone is not enough. University of Philadelphia Working Papers in Linguistics 10(2), Article 9.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2009. Ethnicity and Phonetic Variation in a San Francisco Neighborhood. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2010. Ethnicity and Sociolinguistic Variation in San Francisco. Language & Linguistics Compass 4(7), 458–72.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2011. The completion of a sound change in California English. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Hong Kong, 807–10.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2013. ‘Flip-flop’ and mergers-in-progress. English Language and Linguistics 17(2), 359–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2014. Chinese social practice and San Franciscan authenticity. In Lacoste, V., Leimgruber, J., and Breyer, T., (eds.), Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Berlin, DE: De Gruyter, 55–77.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren, Cardoso, Amanda, Kemenchedjieva, Yova, Wilson, Kieran, Purse, Ruaridh, and Saigusa, Julie. 2015. San Francisco English and the California Vowel Shift. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Bremner, Sue, Corcoran, Hazel et al. 1987. It’s not just Valley Girls: A study of California English. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 117–27.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith T. 2001. ‘Style’ as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R. (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 21–43.Google Scholar
Kendall, Tyler, and Thomas, Erik R.. 2009–14. Vowels: Vowel Manipulation, Normalization, and Plotting in R. R Package. Version 1.2–1. http://lingtools.uoregon.edu/norm/.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19(3), 273–309.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Language Change, Vol. 2: Social Factors. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, and Boberg, Charles. 2006. Atlas of North American English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean, and Wenger, Etienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luthin, Herbert. 1987. The story of California /ow/: The coming-of-age of English in California. In Denning, K. et al. (eds.), Variation in Language: NWAV-XV at Stanford. Stanford, CA: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, 312–24.Google Scholar
Moonwomon, Birch. 1992. Sound Change in San Francisco English. Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Emma, and Carter, Paul. 2015. Dialect contact and distinctiveness: The social meaning of language variation in an island community. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19(1), 3–36.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. 2011. The California Vowel Shift and gay identity. American Speech 86(1), 32–51.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J., D’Onofrio, Annette, Van Hofwegen, Janneke, and Kim, Seung Kyung. 2015. Country ideology and the California Vowel Shift. Language Variation and Change 27(2), 157–86.Google Scholar
Pratt, Teresa, and D’Onofrio, Annette. 2017. Jaw setting and the California Vowel Shift in parodic performance. Language in Society 46(3), 1–30.Google Scholar
Rosenfelder, Ingrid, Fruehwald, Josef, Evanini, Keelan et al. 2014. FAVE 1.1.3. Zenodo. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.9846.Google Scholar
Schilling, Natalie. 2013. Investigating Stylistic Variation. In Chambers, J. K. and Schilling, N. (ed.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 325–49.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23, 193–229.Google Scholar
Sóskuthy, Márton. 2017. Generalised Additive Mixed Models for Dynamic Analysis in Linguistics: A Practical Introduction. arXiv:1703.05339 [stat:AP]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05339.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2008. On the role of children, and the mechanical view: A rejoinder. Language in Society 37(2), 277–80.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo, and Wieling, Martin. 2016. How to analyze linguistic change using mixed models, Growth Curve Analysis and Generalized Additive Modeling. Journal of Language Evolution 1(1), 7–18.Google Scholar
Wong, Amy Wing-mei, and Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2014. Regional variability and ethnic identity: Chinese Americans in New York City and San Francisco. Language & Communication 35(1), 27–42.Google Scholar
Wood, Simon. 2006. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2005. Negative concord in British English dialects. In Iyeiri, Y. (ed.), Aspects of English Negation. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 113–37.Google Scholar
Beltrama, Andrea. 2016. Bridging the Gap: Intensifiers Between Semantic and Social Meaning. Ph.D. dissertation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2009. The quantitative analysis of morphosyntactic variation: Constructing and quantifying the denominator. Linguistic Compass 3(4), 1010–33.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2011. The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning. Language Variation and Change 22(3), 423–41.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2016. Toward a cognitively realistic model of meaningful sociolinguistic variation. In Babel, A. (ed.), Awareness and Control in Sociolinguistic Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 123–51.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald, and McCarthy, Michael. 1999. The English get-passive in spoken discourse: Description and Implications for an Interpersonal Grammar. English Language and Linguistics 3(1), 41–58.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1982. Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1987. Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable, and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25(2), 257–82.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1999. Taming the vernacular: Some repercussions for the study of syntactic variation and spoken grammar. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa 8(1), 59–80.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2000. The telling or the tale? Narratives and gender in adolescent friendship networks. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2), 234–62.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2005. Syntactic variation and spoken language. In Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K. P. (eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins, 81–106.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Kerswill, Paul, and Williams, Ann. 2005. Phonology, grammar and discourse in dialect convergence. In Auer, P., Hinskens, F. and Kerswill, P. (eds.), Dialect Change: The Convergence and Divergence of Dialects in Contemporary Societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 135–67.Google Scholar
Childs, Claire. 2017. Variation and change in negation: A cross-dialectal perspective. Ph.D. dissertation. Newcastle, UK: University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
Dines, Elizabeth R. 1980. Variation in discourse – ‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society 9(1), 13–31.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity at Belten High. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4), 453–76.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2016. Variation, meaning and social change. In Coupland, N. (ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 68–85.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2018. Meaning and Linguistic Variation: The Third Wave in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and Labov, William. 2017. Phonetics, phonology and social meaning. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(4), 467–96.Google Scholar
Eisikovits, Edina. 1991. Variation in subject-verb agreement in Inner Sydney English. In Cheshire, J. (ed.), English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 235–55.Google Scholar
García, Erica C. 1985. Shifting variation. Lingua 67(2), 189–224.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2006. Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 38(7), 981–1014.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney, and Quirk, Randolph. 1990. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Essex, UK: Longman Group UK.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Sebastian. 2004. Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data – and the importance of intuitions. In Lindquist, H. and Mair, C. (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 171–210.Google Scholar
Hughes, Arthur, Trudgill, Peter, and Watt, Dominic. 2005. English Accents and Dialects: An Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of English in the British Isles, 4th ed. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra M. 2010. Indeterminacy and regularization: A process-based approach to the study of sociolinguistic variation and language ideologies. Sociolinguistic Studies 3(2), 229–51.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 2003. Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English. In Britain, D. and Cheshire, J. (eds.), Social Dialectology. In Honour of Peter Trudgill. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 223–43.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. In Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. (eds.), The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 246–323.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972a. Negative attraction and negative concord in English grammar. Language 48(4), 773–818.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972b. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972c. The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 354–96.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop: A response to Beatriz R. Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 44.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1984. Intensity. In Schriffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Georgetown Roundtable in Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 43–70.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1990. The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2(2), 205–54.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1993. The unobservability of structure and its linguistic consequences. Paper presented at New Ways in Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 22. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 2: Social Factors. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, Ravindranath, Maya, Weldon, Tracey, Baranowski, Maciej, and Nagy, Naomi. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(4), 431–63.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz R. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7(2), 171–82.Google Scholar
Lawson, Robert. 2009. Sociolinguistic Constructions of Identity Among Urban Adolescent Males in Glasgow. Ph.D. dissertation. Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez, and Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2015. Perception, cognition, and linguistic structure: The effect of linguistic modularity and cognitive style on sociolinguistic processing. Language Variation and Change 27(3), 319–48.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald K. S. 1989. ‘He was some man him’: Emphatic pronouns in Scottish English. In Walsh, T. J. (ed.), Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Variation and Change. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 179–87.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald K. S. 1991. Locating Dialect in Discourse: The Language of Honest Men and Bonnie Lasses in Ayr. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maltz, Daniel N., and Borker, Ruth A.. 1983. A cultural approach to male–female miscommunication. In Gumperz, J. J. (ed.), Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 196–216.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam, and Walker, James A.. 2013. An existential problem: The sociolinguistic monitor and variation in the existential constructions on Bequia (St. Vincent and the Grenadines). Language in Society 42(4), 407–28.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma. 2003. Learning Style and Identity: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of a Bolton High School. Ph.D. dissertation. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma. 2012. The social life of style. Language and Literature 21(1), 66–83.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma, and Podesva, Robert. 2009. Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society 38(4), 447–85.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma, and Snell, Julia. 2011. ‘Oh, they’re top, them’: Right dislocated tags and interactional stance. In Gregersen, F., Parrott, J. K. and Quist, P. (eds.), Language Variation – European Perspectives III. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 97–110.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1992. Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as and Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 335–58.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, and Schieffelin, Bambi. 1989. Language has a heart. Text 9(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. 2011. Salience and the social meaning of declarative contours: Three case studies of gay professionals. Journal of English Linguistics 39(3), 233–64.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., Wasow, Thomas A., Mendoza-Denton, Norma, and Espinoza, Juli. 1995. Syntactic variation and change in progress: Loss of the verbal coda in topic-restricting as far as constructions. Language 71(1), 102–31.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1984. On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory. Folia Linguistica 18(3–4), 409–38.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 1973. Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In Bailey, C. J. and Shuy, R. (eds.), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 42–62.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23, 193–229.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2001. Negative concord in the Old and New World: Evidence from Scotland. Language Variation and Change 13(2), 109–34.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer, and Holmes-Elliott, Sophie. in preparation. Mapping syntax and the sociolinguistic monitor.Google Scholar
Snell, Julia. 2010. From sociolinguistic variation to socially strategic stylisation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(5), 630–56.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane, and Timmins, Claire. 2010. The role of the individual in language variation and change. In Llamas, C. and Watt, D. (eds.), Language and Identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane, Timmins, Claire, and Tweedie, Fiona. 2007. ‘Talkin’ Jockney’? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2), 221–60.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith, and Labov, William. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19(1), 29–53.Google Scholar
Williams, Ann, and Kerswill, Paul. 1999. Dialect levelling: Change and continuity in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In Foulkes, P. and Docherty, G. (eds.), Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles. London, UK: Arnold Publishers, 141–62.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 1996. The problem of syntactic variation. In Arnold, J., Blake, R., Davidson, B., Schwenter, S., and Solomon, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Data, Theory and Analysis. Selected papers from NWAVE 23. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 177–92.Google Scholar

References

Acton, Eric K. 2019. Pragmatics and the social life of the English definite article. Language 95.1:37–65.Google Scholar
Acton, Eric K., and Potts, Christopher. 2014. That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the sociolinguistics of demonstratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
Agha, Asif. 2005. Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15, 38–59.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2000. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Anderson, Wendy. 2006. ‘Absolutely, totally, filled to the brim with the famous grouse’: Intensifying adverbs in the Scottish Corpus of Texts and Speech. English Today 22(3), 10–16.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Machler, Martin, Bolker, Ben, and Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Beltrama, Andrea. 2018. Totally between subjectivity and discourse. Exploring the pragmatic side of intensification. Journal of Semantics 35(2), 219–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beltrama, Andrea. 2016. Bridging the Gap: Intensifiers Between Semantic and Social Meaning. Ph.D. dissertation. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Beltrama, Andrea, and Bochnak, M. Ryan. 2015. Intensification without degrees cross- linguistically. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(3), 843–79.Google Scholar
Bender, Emily. 2000. Syntactic Variation and Linguistic Competence: The Case of AAVE Copula Absence. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Linguistic features: Algorithms and functions. In Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 211–245.Google Scholar
Bochnak, M. Ryan, and Csipak, Eva. 2014. A new metalinguistic degree morpheme. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT) 24, 432–52.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague, NL: Mouton.Google Scholar
Brown, LeAnn, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2012. A really interesting story: The influence of narrative in linguistic change. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 18(2), Article 2.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2006. Diagnostics of age-graded linguistic behaviour: The case of the quotative system. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callier, Patrick. 2013. Linguistic context and the social meaning of voice quality variation. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2007. Accent, (ing) and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech 82(1), 32–84.Google Scholar
Constantinescu, Camelia. 2011. Gradability in the Nominal Domain. Ph.D. dissertation. Leiden, NL: Leiden University.Google Scholar
Denis, Derek, Wiltschko, Martina, and D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2016. Deconstructed multifunctionalIty: Confirmational variation in Canadian English through time. Paper presented at Discourse-Pragmatic Variation & Change (DiPVaC) 3. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2009. APO: Avoid pragmatic overload. In Hansen, M. Mosengaard and Visconti, J. (eds.), Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 21–41.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4),453–76.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41, 87–100.Google Scholar
Glass, Lelia. 2015. Need to vs. have to and got to: Four socio-pragmatic corpus studies. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21(2), Article 10.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Markedness in grammar: distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language 15(2), 335–70.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1), 25–70.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 2011. Markedness. In Van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 1. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 79–106.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith T., and Gal, Susan. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Kroskrity, P. V. (ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 35–83.Google Scholar
Irwin, Patricia. 2014. SO [totally] speaker-oriented: An analysis of ‘Drama SO’. In Zanuttini, R. and Horn, L. R. (eds.), Micro-Syntactic Variation in North American English. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 29–70.Google Scholar
Ito, Rika, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2003. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society 32(2), 257–79.Google Scholar
Jeong, Sunwoo, and Potts, Christopher. 2016. Intonational sentence-type conventions for perlocutionary effects: An Experimental investigation. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT) 26, 1–22.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher, and McNally, Louise. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2), 345–81.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2019. The ‘gay voice’ and ‘brospeak’: Toward a systematic model of stance. In Hall, K. and Barrett, R. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Language and Sexuality. Oxford, UK, and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kwon, Soohyun. 2012. Beyond the adolescent peak of toykey. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns, Vol 2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 2: Social Factors. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lim, Ni-Eng, and Hong, Huaqing. 2012. Intensifiers as stance markers: A corpus study on genre variations in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language and Discourse 3(2), 129–66.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald. 2002. Extremely interesting, very interesting, or only quite interesting? Adverbs and social class. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6(3), 398–417.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald. 2006. Pure grammaticalization: The development of a teenage intensifier. Language Variation and Change 18(3), 267–83.Google Scholar
McNabb, Yaron. 2012a. Cross-categorial modification of properties in Hebrew and English. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22, 365–82.Google Scholar
McNabb, Yaron. 2012b. The Syntax and Semantics of Degree Modification. Ph.D. dissertation. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma, and Podesva, Robert J.. 2009. Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society 38(4), 447–85.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1992. Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 335–58.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2000. It’s well weird: Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The nineties. In Kirk, J. M. (ed.), Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English. Amsterdam, NL, and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 147–60.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. 2011. Salience and the social meaning of declarative contours: Three case studies of gay professionals. Journal of English Linguistics 39(3), 233–64.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., Wasow, Thomas, Zwicky, Arnold, and Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2007. Intensive and quotative all: Something old, something new. American Speech 82(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
Sassoon, Galit W. 2012. A typology of multidimensional adjectives. Journal of Semantics 30(3), 335–80.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23(3), 193–229.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2005. So who? Like how? Just what?: Discourse markers in the conversations of Young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11), 1896–1915.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2008. So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics 12(2), 361–94.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, and D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2005. When people say, ‘I was like … ’: The quotative system in Canadian Youth. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 10 (2), Article 20.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, and D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2009. Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language 85(1), 58–108.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans, Hesson, Ashley, Bybel, Kali, and Little, Heidi. 2015. Quantifying the referential function of general extenders in North American English. Language in Society 44(5), 705–31.Google Scholar
Waksler, Rachelle. 2012. Super, uber, so, and totally: Over-the-top Intensification to mark subjectivity in colloquial discourse. In Baumgarten, N., Du Bois, I., and House, J. (eds.), Subjectivity in Language and Discourse. Bingley, UK: Brill.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2011. GenX so. Arnold Zwicky’s Blog. http://arnoldzwicky.org/2011/11/14/genx-so/.Google Scholar

References

Abbott, Barbara. 2008. Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of definite descriptions in English. In Gundel, J. and Hedberg, N. (eds.), Reference: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 61–72.Google Scholar
Acton, Eric K. 2014. Pragmatics and the social meaning of determiners. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Acton, Eric K. 2019. Pragmatics and the social life of the English definite article. Language 95(1), 37–65.Google Scholar
Acton, Eric K., and Potts, Christopher. 2014. That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the sociolinguistics of demonstratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18, 3–31.Google Scholar
Babel, Anna (ed.). 2016. Awareness and Control in Sociolinguistic Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2), 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beltrama, Andrea, and Staum Casasanto, Laura. 2017. Totally tall sounds totally younger: Intensification at the socio-semantics interface. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(2), 154–82.Google Scholar
Benor, Sarah Bunin. 2001. Sounding learned: The gendered use of /t/ in Orthodox Jewish English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 7(3), Article 2.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information 16(6), 645–68.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burnett, Heather. 2017. Sociolinguistic interaction and identity construction: The view from game-theoretic pragmatics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(2), 238–71.Google Scholar
Cameron, Richard, and Schwenter, Scott. 2013. Pragmatics and variationist sociolinguistics. In Bayley, R., Cameron, R., and Lucas, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 464–83.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2007. Accent, (ing), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech 82(1), 32–64.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2005. Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(4), 479–508.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405.Google Scholar
Davis, Christopher, and Potts, Christopher. 2010. Affective demonstratives and the division of pragmatic labor. In Aloni, M., Bastiaanse, H., de Jager, T., and Schulz, K. (eds.), Logic, Language, and Meaning: 17th Amsterdam Colloquium Revised Selected Papers. Berlin, DE: Springer, 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Vaneeta. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4), 393–450.Google Scholar
Dayal, Vaneeta. 2013. On the existential force of bare plurals across languages. In Caponigro, I. and Cecchetto, C. (eds.), From Grammar to Meaning: The Spontaneous Logicality of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 49–80.Google Scholar
Djalali, Alex J. 2013. House Proceedings Corpus. https://github.com/alexdjalali/hpc.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4), 453–76.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2011. The Future of Variation Studies. Plenary talk given at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 40. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41, 87–100.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2016. Variation, meaning and social change. In Coupland, N. M. (ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 66–85.Google Scholar
Glass, Lelia. 2015. Strong necessity modals: Four socio-pragmatic corpus studies. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 21(2), 77–88.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 43–58.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Implicature. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 3–28.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., and Ward, Gregory (eds.). 2004. Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, and Weatherholtz, Kodi. 2016. What the heck is salience? How predictive language processing contributes to sociolinguistic perception. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 1115.Google Scholar
Katzir, Roni. 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(6), 669–90.Google Scholar
Keenan, Elinor Ochs. 1976. The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society 5(1), 67–80.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language (translated by Nerlich, Brigitte). London, UK, and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2004. Dude. American Speech 79(3), 281–305.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19(3), 273–309.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness; Or, minding your P’s and Q’s. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 9, 292–305.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma, and Podesva, Robert J.. 2009. Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society 38(4), 447–85.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1955. Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In Buchler, J. (ed.), Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Books, 98–119.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. 2011. Salience and the social meaning of declarative contours: Three case studies of gay professionals. Journal of English Linguistics 39(3), 233–64.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2002. Demonstratives as definites. In van Deemter, K. and Kibble, R. (eds.), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 89–136.Google Scholar
Sharvy, Richard. 1980. A more general theory of definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 89(4), 607–24.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K. and Selby, H. A. (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 11–55.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23(3), 193–229.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 2004. Relevance theory. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 607–32.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2008. Colonial dialect contact in the history of European languages: On the irrelevance of identity to new-dialect formation. Language in Society 37(2), 241–54.Google Scholar
Walls, Seth Colter. 2008. ‘That one’, McCain calls Obama in debate. Huffington Post. 7 October 2008. Last accessed 22 July 2014. www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/07/that-one-mccain-calls-oba_n_132802.html.Google Scholar
Zhang, Qing. 2005. A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity. Language in Society 34(3), 431–66.Google Scholar

References

Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph, and Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3), 255–78.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter. 2015. The relation between language users’ perception and production repertoires. Proceedings of the 18th ICPhS: Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. 171–204.Google Scholar
California Style Collective. 1993. Variation and personal/group style. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 21. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2010. Sociolinguistics and perception. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(6), 377–89.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2011. The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning. Language Variation and Change 22(3), 423–41.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2016. Toward a cognitively realistic model of meaningful sociolinguistic variation. In Babel, Anna (ed.), Awareness and Control in Sociolinguistic Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 123–51.Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, Bharath, Yi, Han-Gyol, and Maddox, W. Todd. 2014. Dual-learning systems during speech category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21(2), 488–95.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerard J., and Foulkes, Paul. 2014. An evaluation of usage-based approaches to the modelling of sociophonetic variability. Lingua 142, 42–56.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4), 453–76.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Susanne, and Toda, Martine. 2010. Do differences in male versus female /s/ reflect biological or sociophonetic factors? In Fuchs, S., Toda, M., and Zygis, M. (eds.), Turbulent Sounds: An Interdisciplinary Guide. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 281–302.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, and Billings, Andrew C.. 2004. Assessing language attitudes: Speaker evaluation studies. In Davies, A. and Elder, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 187–209.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Jannedy, Stefanie, and Mendoza-Denton, Norma. 1999. Oprah and /ay/: Lexical frequency, referee design, and style. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. San Francisco, CA, 1389–92.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Podlubny, Ryan, Drager, Katie, and McAuliffe, Megan. 2017. Car-talk: Location-specific speech production and perception. Journal of Phonetics 65, 94–109.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Warren, Paul, and Drager, Katie. 2006. Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics 34, 458–84.Google Scholar
Hazenberg, Evan. 2016. Walking the straight and narrow: Linguistic choice and gendered presentation. Gender and Language 10(2), 270–94.Google Scholar
Heffernan, Kevin. 2004. Evidence from HNR that /s/ is a social marker of gender. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23(2), 71–84.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith T. and Gal, Susan. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Kroskrity, P. V. (ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 35–83.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 2006. Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: The emergence of social identity and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34, 485–99.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore. 2009. The macro-level social meanings of late-modern Danish accents. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41, 167–92.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center For Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1993. The unobservability of structure and its linguistic consequences. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 22. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, Ravindranath, Maya, Weldon, Tracey, Baranowski, Maciej, and Nagy, Naomi. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(4), 431–63.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez. 2007. Sexuality in context: Variation and the sociolinguistic perception of identity. Language in Society 36(4), 533–54.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez. 2014. Categories, stereotypes, and the linguistic perception of sexuality. Language in Society 43, 539–66.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez, and Fox, Sue. 2014. Social salience and the sociolinguistic monitor: A case study of ING and TH-fronting in Britain. Journal of English Linguistics 42(3), 185–217.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez, and Holmes-Elliot, Sophie. 2014. East end boys and west end girls: /s/-fronting in southeast England. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19(2), Article 13.Google Scholar
Linville, Sue Ellen. 1998. Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation in men’s speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 50(1), 35–48.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4(226).Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin. 2011. The influence of actual and imputed talker gender on fricative perception, revisited. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(5), 2631–4.Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin, Jefferson, Sarah V., and McDonald, Elizabeth C.. 2006. The influence of perceived sexual orientation on fricative identification. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(4), 2427–37.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1992. Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 335–58.Google Scholar
Pharao, Nicolai, and Maegaard, Marie. 2017. On the influence of coronal sibilants and stops on the perception of social meanings in Copenhagen Danish. Linguistics 55(5), 1141–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pharao, Nicolai, Maegaard, Marie, Møller, Janus S., and Kristiansen, Tore. 2014. Indexical meanings of [s+] among Copenhagen youth: Social perception of a phonetic variant in different prosodic contexts. Language in Society 43(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Garrod, Simon. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4), 329–92.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Garrod, Simon. 2014. Self-, other-, and joint monitoring using forward models. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8(132).Google Scholar
Pleck, Joseph H., Sonenstein, Freya L., and Ku, Leighton C.. 1993. Masculinity ideology: Its impact on adolescent males’ heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues 49, 1–29.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J., and Van Hofwegen, Janneke. 2015. How conservatism and normative gender constrain variation in inland California: The case of /s/. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20(2), Article 15.Google Scholar
Reidy, Patrick F. 2015. The Spectral Dynamics of Voiceless Sibilant Fricatives in English and Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., and McNair-Knox, Faye. 1994. Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 235–76.Google Scholar
Sachs, Jacqueline, Lieberman, Philip, and Erickson, Donna. 1973. Anatomical and cultural determinants of male and female speech. In Shuy, R. W. and Fasold, R. W. (eds.) Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 74–85.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Martin F. 1968. Identification of speaker sex from isolated, voiceless fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 43(5), 1178–9.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K. and Selby, H. (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 11–55.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23, 193–229.Google Scholar
Strand, Elizabeth A. 1999. Uncovering the roles of gender stereotypes in speech perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(1), 86–99.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2007. Empirical evidence for gendered speech production: /s/ in Glaswegian. In Cole, J. and Ignacio Hualde, J. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 65–86.Google Scholar
Wagner, Laura, Speer, Shari R, Moore, Leslie C et al. 2015. Linguistics in a science museum: Integrating research, teaching, and outreach at the language sciences research lab. Language and Linguistics Compass 9(10), 420–31.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans, and Hesson, Ashley. 2014. Individual sensitivity to the frequency of socially meaningful linguistic cues affects language attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33(6), 651–66.Google Scholar
Walker, Abby. 2014. Crossing Oceans with Voices and Ears: Second Dialect Acquisition and Topic-based Shifting in Production and Perception. Ph.D. dissertation. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Zhang, Qing. 2005. A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity. Language in Society 34(3), 431–66.Google Scholar
Zimman, Lal. 2010. Female-to-male transsexuals and gay-sounding voices: A pilot study. Colorado Research in Linguistics 22(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Zimman, Lal. 2016. Sociolinguistic agency and the gendered voice: Metalinguistic negotiations of vocal masculinization among female-to-male transgender speakers. In Babel, A. (ed.), Awareness and Control in Sociolinguistic Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 253–77.Google Scholar
Zimman, Lal. 2017. Gender as stylistic bricolage: Transmasculine voices and the relationship between fundamental frequency and /s/. Language in Society 46(3), 339–70.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×